An additional factor is that these installations can then be lighter and cheaper and thus more numerous for the same investment.

By choosing for on-site electrolysis, voltage is more important then amperage, thanks to uninterrupted operation (365/365) is a high frequency of moving more consistent with pattern.

Therefore, the Sea-wiggle.R is equipped with a variation of buoyancy to even better exploit the variability of waves in an optimal way. The fragmented design and floats adaptable according to wave profiles of a certain ocean area in a particular season is also economical beneficial.

It can be said that the Sea.wiggle.R concept can take advantage of the same wave three times!

The ratio of energy 'harvested' from the total wave energy content per time period is crucial. In order to recover more energy from the ocean waves, as many force vectors as possible must be utilised for motor motion.

The up and down of a given float depends on its weight, the reaction force of the transmission and his water displacement relative to the water mass in the wave crests the foat covers.

The statistical frequency of occurrence decrease with increasing wave size, so the number of usable amplitudes decrease with the size / mass of a float.

In heavy storms, it makes sense to dampen agitation that are too violent. The Sea-wiggle.R is equipped with a second generator whose output is proportional to rocking. That energy is for propulsion and driving a gyroscope.

Other WECs with a series of identical floats will not be able to exploit the full statistical curve of a given wave profile at a certain location over time and will certainly not be adaptable to changing patterns.

Autonomous navigation will be possible in the foreseeable future.  An emergency propulsion effective in different ocean circumstances will become / are available or are ready to test.

In the following, I propose some passive and active measures to be evaluated by experts: I assume that a steered vessel can predict and avoid the trajectory of a free-floating object in normal sea conditions. In rough seas, visibility and geo-tagging may be too limited and response time too short.

The objective of high net energy yield places the focus on 'when, where, which and how to use propulsion.

I expect that AI - depending on sensors - will become able to select progessively the available means.

• The submarine principle, where the WEC seeks shelter below the surface (provided that buoyancy can be restored and other hazards do not increase), could provide a solution.
• Another idea is to limit the upward bobbing by deploying or inflating a platform below the depth of the wave height: at a depth of 1/2 the wavelength, there is hardly any amplitude. This platform prevents the WEC from oscillating.

Wind can be used to drive a gyroscope. The stormier the weather, the higher the rotation speed. But to increase momentum more, the Sea-wiggle.R is equipped with a second generator whose output is proportional to agitation.

The Sea-wiggle.R avoids this shortcoming by allowing different parts to move at different rates relative to each other. The design is such that a Sea.wiggle.R is adaptable to the wave profile of the environment to be harvested.

If for economic reasons larger installations are required, I prefer to redesign the configuration: the same principles but in an open extended structure.

In my opinion, a complete risk analysis would show that the overall vulnerability, measured in terms of operation (= continuation of complete or partial supply of electricity), would be more favourable for a multitude of remote decentralised installations compared to systems that are concentrated, anchored or have pointed artificial islands and are equipped with sea-land cables.

And this is precisely thanks to the characteristics of both systems in relation to surveillance, defense, recovery.  Monitoring free-floating installations is undoubtedly more difficult than stationary plants. As a result, searching and finding are even more uncertain especially for constant moving in a liquid environment.

The second development is ongoing to reach a closed stand alone electrolyzer for seawater; inspiration I seek in study and in gradual problem solving.

Not disclosed

Not disclosed

Separation of gases if we allow multiple reactions at an electrode or handle multiple voltages at multiple electrodes.

So meanwhile the Seanergy.be needs the most effective membrane, but not necessarily the most efficient energetically, as there is plenty because the Sea-wiggle.R is 7/7 and 24/24 active.

So, ask for an N.D.A. if you want to integrate a new approach into your research or development.

• The first difference is that on land, the environment in which forces are channeled has a fairly uniform density. At sea, at the air-water interface, there is a sudden change in density.
• A second distinction is that on land, the naturally occurring force vectors, mainly used for work, are gravity and wind, while at sea there are additional undersea currents and surface waves. (volume change, reaction not considered)
• The characteristic of wind is that its force vector is rather uniform in direction, having a unique sense (orientation) within a time interval.
• At sea, the original sources of power give direction to the waves, but in an area the observed wave profiles are usually the result of interference, so useful motion at sea appears more random than on land. In addition, the wave profile is also influenced by a more general underwater current and by the circular/oval motions due to changes in water depth (e.g. coastal approach).

• These inescapable forces urged me to look at randomness not as something to be resisted or converted to a repetitive motion, but as a resource that can to be exploited directly.
• This generator delivers an EM without the requirement of having to go through a full cycle. (e.g. piston start-stop or rotor 360°) which saves on mechanical or hydraulic transmissions (less conversion losses).
• Nor requires this kind of alternator a constant speed between its components.

• The above implies that the same mechanics cannot be employed one-on-one at sea as on land, because of the ceaseless (strong) change in direction and magnitude of resulting forcevectors. Note: Waves in open sea are a propagation of wave energy, while waves in test bassins are a mass displacement by moving walls !
• In my attempt to design a WEC for open ocean I opted for free-floating, individually of in an aggregated form. Thereby avoiding drawbacks: 1) no anchored WEC as every underwater structure has a minor infuence on the water flow and of 2) reduced mutual influence by proximity by an open flexible aggregating form.
• Their are only three manners to deal with random motion as effect: oppose, suffer, accept. The latter I implemented in the design of the free-floating Sea-wiggle.R by accepting the 3D+t resulting force vectors into one WEC, minimizing wringing on hings, on guiding shafts, static and viscous friction.
• My conclusion was: no gearboxes only direct transmission, so I had to develop a generator which did not need complete cycles (start-end, 360°).
• Further conclusion is: floaters may not have uniform buoyancy to respond to various wave profiles.
• Final: Forces that are not in line with the movement of one (1) transmission, i.e. sideways should not really be lost, this is achieved by setting up the floats in a circle.
• Because the Sea-wiggle.R floats freely, its survival rate does not depend on the forces transmitted by waves or currents.